Citizens must lead battle for term limits - Fair Comment

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 21, 1994 | by Dan Quayle

You hear politicians all the time urging their fellow citizens to get involved in the political process. But this is just a cliche, a line used so many times that politicians must have forgotten what it means. When citizens truly get involved -- as they have with the term-limit movement sweeping the country -- professional politicians are scared to death.

Since 1990, the citizens of 15 states have voted to limit the number of terms their representatives and senators can serve in Washington. Whether states can constitutionally limit the tenure of their congressmen now is being tested in federal court.

The test case was brought by Democratic Rep. Tom Foley, House speaker, who is suing his home state of Washington over a term-limit measure that the state's voters passed in a 1992 ballot initiative. The legislation effectively would bar him from standing for reelection in 1998. Foley, for the record, first was elected in 1964. A U.S. district judge in Seattle has ruled for Foley in the first round, but the case will be appealed and no doubt reach the Supreme Court.

Each side in this dispute cites the Constitution as its source. The proponents of term limits argue that their case rests on Article 1, Section 4, which provides that "the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature." Thus, they reason, the states have the power to determine the length of service. More generally, proponents of term limits cite the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states powers not specifically delegated to the federal government.

The opponents of term limits also wave the Constitution, noting that it specifically lists three requirements for eligibility to serve in Congress: age, residency in a state and citizenship. They argue that any attempt by the state to establish further requirements defies the Constitution.

If the case ends up before the Supreme Court, the current state term-limits laws passed by voters probably will lose and the incumbent congressmen will win. The high court is more political than it lets on; the justices will tend to side with the congressmen who reside with them in our nation's capital.

Though the advocates of state-imposed term limits may lose in court, this issue won't go away. There are other ways besides state laws to impose term limits. Congress, for example, could vote for an amendment to impose limits on itself. This may likely, but some polls indicate that 70 percent of the people support term limits. Presidential terms already are limited. So are the terms for most governors and many mayors. Congress is essentially the only major political body left where members can serve for life.

As people realize this, their support for term limits will rise. Public pressure eventually forces Congress to act. This is why proposals to enact term limits have been kept out of public view in congressional committees. The leaders of Congress are afraid term limits would win in a public vote.

The arguments against term limits also are well-known. They would deprive voters of the right to choose any candidate they wish, opponenets say. And good people would be forced from office.

It is true that the careers of some talented congressmen and senators would be cut short. Most term-limit proposals call for a tenure of 1 2 years. But this still would allow for a lengthy career -- as much as 24 years of continuous service for someone who serves in both the House and Senate.

The problem with the system today is that incumbents have such great advantages in terms of money, power and publicity that in many races there effectively is no choice. The candidates who possibly could beat incumbents never even get in the ring. Does anyone really believe that the small number of people who run and win time after time are the only ones with the courage and wisdom and talent to lead the country?

Look at Congress today. Its members primarily are interested in getting reelected. Watch Congress perform this year and ask yourself this question: With such a dismal record, how can more than 90 percent be guaranteed reelection? The answer is the power of the incumbency.

That old cliche about citizens getting involved in the political process is true. They should get involved to the point that more of them run for Congress. The term-limits battle is joined. If it succeeds and the power of incumbency is broken, then you truly will see greater political involvement.